New Bacteria Replaces Need For Gasoline
- Thread starter Mike Kayatta
- Start date
Not a life scientist here, so please bear with me. If we're losing 90% of the feedstock energy in this type of process, that means we're going to need an extraordinary amount of cellulose to make this even a viable supplement to dino-gas. So, the purported 323 tons of waste material (even notwithstanding the issues of recycling and transportation) isn't going to put a huge dent in the 6.85 billion barrels of oil America uses each year (source: http://205.254.135.24/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6 ).Julian_West said:
What if algae were cultivated as feedstock? Essentially, growing algae requires dirt and sunlight. Would that make this process more viable?
If you ever take organic chemistry, you'll learn that most chemicals are harmful to the body. Even the ones that science has made useful and manageable for common people to buy off store shelves is often "toxic".RicoGrey said:
For example, take Bleach. Useful and found in most homes. Those who put this product on your store shelves expect you to read the instructions and dilute any quantities you use. Spill a little on your skin, nothing to worry about, just wash the area. Ingesting any amount though is very dangerous. So Bleach is in that "toxic" category, but is still commonly used.
Basically, there is always a risk involved and some chemicals are more dangerous then others. Gasoline can be dangerous but is made publicly available. Anything deemed far too dangerous though won't be made easily accessible...
Why don't you read what you quoted? -Anol is the suffix for ANY chemical compound that is a monohydric alcohol. Ethanol is not the only type, another less common type is methanol which is made from cooking wood.Mike Kayatta said:
Any liquid alcohol WILL cause similar problems(minus the corrosion OFC, but that does need to be tested) as those reported for ethanol, because all liquid alcohols make great solvents; it's just the nature of the beast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol
Read, because knowledge is power
/facepalm. "Alcohol based fuels are completely incompatible with engines not designed to run on alcohol."-you. Untrue. Wikipedia, first line: "Butanol may be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine." Then, later: "It can be used in unmodified gasoline engines." Also, when did I dispute that butanol was an alcohol? In fact, that's the reason I referred to them as brothers in the article above. Also, if you read the reports from Tulane, they completely disagree with your vague statement that "any liquid alcohol will cause similar problems." Between a brilliant set of scientists who do this for a living, and someone who quotes wikipedia about the definition of alcohol when the nature of butanol as an alcohol was never in question, I choose the scientists. And since we're now being apparently being snarky with 90s catch phrases, I say the following: "It's science!" Now, pardon me while I moonwalk out of any further discussion on this non-argument to the Bill Nye theme song. **Bill Nye the Science Guy, Biiilll Nyyyyeee the Sciennnncceeee guuuuyyy... BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!**Elementlmage said:
/facepalm. "Alcohol based fuels are completely incompatible with engines not designed to run on alcohol."-you. Untrue. Wikipedia, first line: "Butanol may be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine." Then, later: "It can be used in unmodified gasoline engines." Also, when did I dispute that butanol was an alcohol? In fact, that's the reason I referred to them as brothers in the article above. Also, if you read the reports from Tulane, they completely disagree with your vague statement that "any liquid alcohol will cause similar problems." Between a brilliant set of scientists who do this for a living, and someone who quotes wikipedia about the definition of alcohol when the nature of butanol as an alcohol was never in question, I choose the scientists. And since we're now apparently being snarky with 90s catch phrases, I say the following: "It's science!" Now, pardon me while I moonwalk out of any further discussion on this non-argument to the Bill Nye theme song. **Bill Nye the Science Guy, Biiilll Nyyyyeee the Sciennnncceeee guuuuyyy... BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!**Elementlmage said:
Ok, for one thing mixing in alcohols into fuel creates a heap of troubles with current engines. Over here in europe, we got this crazy stuff called E10 - a type of supposedly ecological alternative to regular 95 octane fuel which has a set amount of alcohols mixed into it.
If you aren't an owner of those 10% or so cars that actually support that fuel, you will RUIN your engine pumping that fuel. It ain't exactly a perfect solution right now. There is a lot of investment necessary to "switch" from regular fuel to some alcohol based fuel - gas stations need to be upgraded, dedicated fuel tanks built at local refineries and distribution nodes and car manufacturers need to adapt engines to perform reliable and efficient with it. It's a lot of money that needs to be spent here - and in the end it's the consumer who needs to pay for it.
Are YOU willing to pay for a green alternative that will cost you ... lets pick a number... about 60$/? a month more when you could just go with what you have right now ?
That kind of bacteria has been in research for some time now. I believe I heard about it around 2002 or so. It was a nice study of some genious genetic modification to create that kind of bacteria... basicly they built 90% of it. If this really makes it into the market, just remember that this is evil evil dangerous genetic manipulation. Really scary stuff right ?
Btw, you might be pleasently surprised to know that "those big mean oil giants" invest into other stuff beside sating your need for oil - like solar and wind energy. There are bad apples in the bunch like in any other industry of course, but on the whole, I believe that oil companies would be quite willing to invest into a fuelsource they could safly and reliably reproduce anywhere instead of having to invest into socially unstable regions, tap very unsafe oilfields and risk catastrophic spills like on deepwater horizon.
If you think about it - they stand the most to win with this bacteria and they have the funds to develop it to a point where they can supply a sufficient quantity to the market.
If you aren't an owner of those 10% or so cars that actually support that fuel, you will RUIN your engine pumping that fuel. It ain't exactly a perfect solution right now. There is a lot of investment necessary to "switch" from regular fuel to some alcohol based fuel - gas stations need to be upgraded, dedicated fuel tanks built at local refineries and distribution nodes and car manufacturers need to adapt engines to perform reliable and efficient with it. It's a lot of money that needs to be spent here - and in the end it's the consumer who needs to pay for it.
Are YOU willing to pay for a green alternative that will cost you ... lets pick a number... about 60$/? a month more when you could just go with what you have right now ?
That kind of bacteria has been in research for some time now. I believe I heard about it around 2002 or so. It was a nice study of some genious genetic modification to create that kind of bacteria... basicly they built 90% of it. If this really makes it into the market, just remember that this is evil evil dangerous genetic manipulation. Really scary stuff right ?
Btw, you might be pleasently surprised to know that "those big mean oil giants" invest into other stuff beside sating your need for oil - like solar and wind energy. There are bad apples in the bunch like in any other industry of course, but on the whole, I believe that oil companies would be quite willing to invest into a fuelsource they could safly and reliably reproduce anywhere instead of having to invest into socially unstable regions, tap very unsafe oilfields and risk catastrophic spills like on deepwater horizon.
If you think about it - they stand the most to win with this bacteria and they have the funds to develop it to a point where they can supply a sufficient quantity to the market.
Why don't you keep reading?Mike Kayatta said:
"Alcohol fuels, including butanol and ethanol, are partially oxidized and therefore need to run at richer mixtures than gasoline. Standard gasoline engines in cars can adjust the air-fuel ratio to accommodate variations in the fuel, but only within certain limits depending on model. If the limit is exceeded by running the engine on pure butanol or a gasoline blend with a high percentage of butanol, the engine will run lean, something which can critically damage components."
Older model cars (such as a '95 Bonneville) do not have very advanced anti-knock systems and will be unable to accommodate the increased F/A ratio and in some cars it may require a fuel pump upgrade. In fact, depending on how Butanol like to burn compared to Gasoline, it may require the installation of new fuel injector with modified spray patterns.
What the Tulane article was referring to was the similar Octane rating that Butanol shares with Gasoline. Butanol has an anemic MON rating compared to gasoline though, which would limit the level of compression able to be achieved in an ICE at higher than idle RPMs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_ratio
And you still failed to address the solvent nature of Butanol and it's effects on fuel seals and the piston rings.
Just because the engine can burn the fuel does not mean it will not have adverse effects. The use of alcohols as fuel in engines has well documented side effects. Alcohols ARE corrosive (not the qualifier in the Tulane article, "LESS corrosive") to aluminum parts (most new engine blocks are made of aluminum and almost all intake manifolds from the past 20 years are as well), and because they are extremely efficient solvents, they WILL wash the oil off the piston rings causing increased wear and eventual failure! These facts are not in dispute, and the Tulane study has done nothing to change that!
And, since you are apparently unaware of the important role that piston rings serve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piston_ring
Premature failure of the piston rings will allow fuel to leak into the crank case and mix with the engine oil which will lower its life span and result in increased wear to any engine part that relies on the oil; oil pump, valve train, cam shafts, crank shaft, etc.; alcohols basically bring a slow death to engines that are not properly designed from the ground up to handle them.
But yeah, keep living in your fantasy world full of indigence and assumption.
Thank you!syrus27 said:
I like it! I am going to be putting one in my car ASAP!Phishfood said:There IS an engine that runs on water. Odds are you have seen one.Foxbat Flyer said:
